Pretty much since (to my knowledge anyway) LG has been the source of all the IPS panels on the market. Their QC has been less than stellar over the years. All the issues people complain about with IPS panels are nothing new and have plagued LG IPS panels for years now. Doesn't matter if its S-IPS, e-IPS, H-IPS, AS-IPS, etc.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
U2412HM is 16:9 !
- Thread starter Oled
- Start date
Pretty much since (to my knowledge anyway) LG has been the source of all the IPS panels on the market. Their QC has been less than stellar over the years. All the issues people complain about with IPS panels are nothing new and have plagued LG IPS panels for years now. Doesn't matter if its S-IPS, e-IPS, H-IPS, AS-IPS, etc.
Wow, this got all out of hand.
I love 16:10. I hate 16:9. I grew up with 4:3 screens that had lots of vertical space to work in.
*hugs his NEC 2490WUXIBK and Cinema HD displays.*
Hell my Lenovo W700 has a 16:10 and it is far easier to work with than the 16:9 laptops. Open up Visual Studio, Photoshop and Illustrator and tell me 16:9 beats 16:10.
Dell will offer the 16:10 for some time to the pro market. Although Apple has dropped them so...
I love 16:10. I hate 16:9. I grew up with 4:3 screens that had lots of vertical space to work in.
*hugs his NEC 2490WUXIBK and Cinema HD displays.*
Hell my Lenovo W700 has a 16:10 and it is far easier to work with than the 16:9 laptops. Open up Visual Studio, Photoshop and Illustrator and tell me 16:9 beats 16:10.
Dell will offer the 16:10 for some time to the pro market. Although Apple has dropped them so...
I honestly do not care if it's 16:9 or 16:10, a hundred pixels or so doesn't matter to me, and I don't see why everyone gets all upset over it seeing as the difference between the two is negligible. All I care about is whether contrast/black levels, panel uniformity, white glow, and the AG coating is improved.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
Meh, more resolution and good looking colors across the board is what i care about.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
This is a helpful tool I use to compare 16:9 to 16:10
http://www.displaywars.com/
It's not just pixels that being shifted but actual screen dimensions. Comparing two 24" monitors, one 16:10(taller) and the other 16:9(shorter but wider).
To achieve a similar height as a 16:10 24" monitor in 16:9, the user will have to buy a 27" monitor and it will be measurably wider.
For my personal preference, I don't like 1920x1080 27" monitors due to pixel pitch(less sharpness). The U2711 and Apple 27" in 2560x1440 is optimal for its size.
It would be interesting if one of these companies would release a 16:9 resolution higher than 2560x1440 in the future.
http://www.displaywars.com/
It's not just pixels that being shifted but actual screen dimensions. Comparing two 24" monitors, one 16:10(taller) and the other 16:9(shorter but wider).
To achieve a similar height as a 16:10 24" monitor in 16:9, the user will have to buy a 27" monitor and it will be measurably wider.
For my personal preference, I don't like 1920x1080 27" monitors due to pixel pitch(less sharpness). The U2711 and Apple 27" in 2560x1440 is optimal for its size.
It would be interesting if one of these companies would release a 16:9 resolution higher than 2560x1440 in the future.
Last edited:
If all you're doing is games and movies then go x1080. If you're doing any coding or engineering or any actual work, then more vertical pixels are great.
Personally I'd love to have 1920x1440. But then I can deal with black bars in movies to make better the other 95% of the time that I use my computer. Besides I can always just output the movies to my TV if it bugs me.
King of Heroes
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,006
Theoretically, 16:9 does provide a higher resolution if you keep the amount of vertical pixels static. For example:
16:10 - 1680x1050
16:9 - 1866x1050
16:10 - 1920x1200
16:9 - 2133x1200
16:10 - 2560x1600
16:9 - 2844x1600
Of course, what Oled leaves out is the fact that manufacturers don't give a shit about higher resolutions, so we will NEVER see a 2133x1200 or 2844x1600 monitor. They only give a shit about keeping costs down and profits high. So they'll use 16:9 because its cheaper and they can charge the same for less resolution, not because its better for games or movies or whatever the hell else Oled has deluded himself into believing.
16:10 - 1680x1050
16:9 - 1866x1050
16:10 - 1920x1200
16:9 - 2133x1200
16:10 - 2560x1600
16:9 - 2844x1600
Of course, what Oled leaves out is the fact that manufacturers don't give a shit about higher resolutions, so we will NEVER see a 2133x1200 or 2844x1600 monitor. They only give a shit about keeping costs down and profits high. So they'll use 16:9 because its cheaper and they can charge the same for less resolution, not because its better for games or movies or whatever the hell else Oled has deluded himself into believing.
Use this thread for 16:9 vs 16:10
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037232814#post1037232814
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037232814#post1037232814
About U2412HM it obviously will be cheaper also for costumers than if it would be 1920x1200. So for people that do light work, browse the web, watch movies and play games this is good news.
For people that needed the resolution may have wanted to pay the extra for 120 pixels in height.
For people that needed the resolution may have wanted to pay the extra for 120 pixels in height.
Those people already had plenty of choices available though. Not really sure how having less choices is great news. I'm still not convinced this is going to actually be the replacement for the U2410 but I guess we'll have to wait for some more info and see.
In no way fathomable is that a true statement.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
When I had three U2311H 16:9 monitors, they were noticeably shorter than my U2410 monitors.
Not just in diagonal size but the slightly squared look of the U2410 resembles three small TVs than three short-wide monitors.
The near square look of 16:10 monitors looks better in Eyefinity than 16:9 from my perspective.
Manufactures are planning to make 16:9 only, taking away any choice of monitor aspect ratio in the market.
I can't see how is that a good thing for consumers. Cheaper isn't always better. Usually people who focus on price only don't get what they originally wanted.
Not just in diagonal size but the slightly squared look of the U2410 resembles three small TVs than three short-wide monitors.
The near square look of 16:10 monitors looks better in Eyefinity than 16:9 from my perspective.
Manufactures are planning to make 16:9 only, taking away any choice of monitor aspect ratio in the market.
I can't see how is that a good thing for consumers. Cheaper isn't always better. Usually people who focus on price only don't get what they originally wanted.
Last edited:
Personally, I'd prefer to have a choice of paying more for getting good image quality along with those very valuable extra pixels for work. I mean, it's not like there aren't any good 1080p monitors out there already. The actual physical size doesn't really matter here, it's all about the vertical resolution. My x1080 display feels ridiculously cramped when doing pretty much any work compared to my x1200 one. For that reason I wouldn't really even consider this new Dell if in fact turns out to be 1920x1080 and the replacement for the U2410. As someone already said, I don't really see the point of having 22", 23", and 24" models all with the same resolution, doesn't make much sense. And if you want something more than those 1080 pixels in height you have to go with 2560x1440 which is probably a bit of an overkill for most people not to mention text size might be an issue.
not really, pixel pitch on those 27" monitors with those resolutions isn't that great! i wish these display companies made a 24" 2560x1600 monitor
otherwise, year after year, it's the same old sizes with the same old resolutions
I've never liked the whole widescreen gimmick, but since 16:9 is the most accepted standard, I now prefer monitors which fit that standard.
If wider is better, why don't papers and books use a wide format? Well, because reading a long line of words is not as easy as if it were broken up into multiple lines. Reading and writing is a big part of computer tasks and I would prefer 4:3 if that were still the standard.
Lastly, aspect ratio simply describes the shape, not the number of pixels. You don't need a billion links to figure out Dell's 24 inch going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is losing pixels.
If wider is better, why don't papers and books use a wide format? Well, because reading a long line of words is not as easy as if it were broken up into multiple lines. Reading and writing is a big part of computer tasks and I would prefer 4:3 if that were still the standard.
Lastly, aspect ratio simply describes the shape, not the number of pixels. You don't need a billion links to figure out Dell's 24 inch going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is losing pixels.
not really, pixel pitch on those 27" monitors with those resolutions isn't that great! i wish these display companies made a 24" 2560x1600 monitor
otherwise, year after year, it's the same old sizes with the same old resolutions
No thanks. Small text size at native resolution, and scaling issues when using 1080p media.
how can anyone not want higher resolution
leave 1080p media for your 1080p tv, and the high density monitor for fitting a lot of stuff! small text size is an OS setting problem with solutions i think
how can anyone not want higher resolution
leave 1080p media for your 1080p tv, and the high density monitor for fitting a lot of stuff! small text size is an OS setting problem with solutions i think
Because the resolution you're talking about is overkill on a 24 inch. I'll take that res on a 30 inch screen.
I've heard many times enlarging fonts does not work out perfectly. Besides, everything is going to be tiny with that pixel size.
Eh, that resolution is fine. Enlarging fonts does work out, if it doesn't people are doing it wrong. Fonts scale correctly on most machines. If anything, the text should look better, and crisper (and less pixelated!)
Enlarging fonts does work most of the time, enlarging everything else doesn't, at least in Windows. GUI scaling still sucks. I would have bought an U2711 if it wasn't for the tiny pixel pitch. I could sit closer to the monitor but then the viewing angles would become a problem. Until we have an OS with UI that scales properly, 2560x1400 is too high for a 27" screen, let alone a 24" IMO.
Did I miss something or why is it that nobody seems to doubt the Dell U2412 will be 16:9? The only hint to this new model has been a display driver release by Dell, right? According to the setup screen (see below, taken from this thread) the model name is U2412M, not U2412HM (where H is denoting 16:9). So who called the U2412HM into existence in the first place?
Here's another interesting blog post on this (see the comments section).
Here's another interesting blog post on this (see the comments section).
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Can't understand, Dell will not have a 16:10 IPS anymore?
SingleCellOrganism
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 42
Not to be trite, but I've never read more BS in my life.
How can anyone suggest that 16:9 is better than 16:10? It is literally less pixels.
I'll keep my higher res 16:10 please. Guess I'm sticking with my ZR30W for quite awhile.
How can anyone suggest that 16:9 is better than 16:10? It is literally less pixels.
I'll keep my higher res 16:10 please. Guess I'm sticking with my ZR30W for quite awhile.
Did I miss something or why is it that nobody seems to doubt the Dell U2412 will be 16:9? The only hint to this new model has been a display driver release by Dell, right? According to the setup screen (see below, taken from this thread) the model name is U2412M, not U2412HM (where H is denoting 16:9). So who called the U2412HM into existence in the first place?
Here's another interesting blog post on this (see the comments section).
I agree. U2412HM is just a rumor. U2412M is more real. If there are any updates to U2412M, I will bump my thread up.
SingleCellOrganism
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 42
16:9 is for poor people and chumps who think less vertical resolution is *good*.
Poll users, I guarantee 16:10 users make more money and are more successful as a trend.
Am I joking? Maybe.
16:9 blows though.
Poll users, I guarantee 16:10 users make more money and are more successful as a trend.
Am I joking? Maybe.
16:9 blows though.